What IS good, and how do we determine it?

[Thumpalumpacus]

I meant "we" as in humanity. How do you all, as athiests, believe that us humans can determine morality?"

And Parker's Tan, I'm not uncomfortable at all discussing my views. In fact, I'd LOVE to talk to you guys about it if you genuinely wanted to know. But I just feel like the minute I posted that question to you guys, instead of hearing your answers, a lot of you just immediately jumped to asking me questions in return. And maybe I'm wrong, but they didn't feel like questions in the form of genuine curiosity and discussion, they felt like hostile questions. That's why I had to say a few times, "hey guys, just answer my post lol, don't be so distracted by me and what I believe!"

Keep in mind that Christians come in here constantly claiming to just have a couple of "simple questions". Bear in mind that this "how can you be, or know, good when you don't have faith" is a tired trope that is too often used to condescend to us -- just as Randy has been doing for the last month.

Your refusal to answer cogent questions makes me wonder exactly how deep your thinking on the matter is at all. You come in here claiming that objective morality exists, but you offer nothing to support that assertion, and you don't answer questions about the moral dimensions of the god who is after all the reason your Bible was written at all. I weigh the opinions I read here carefully based on what I see you post, but if you're not going to answer these questions, I have no metric for assessing the value of your insights, and it is only natural at that point that I should be more guarded.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Rhythm, like I said. Morality never changed. God never changed. The OT was simply not perfect and not complete. Jesus came partly to show us what God is really like, because we didn't have it perfectly right before that.

God's behavior certainly changed. What of that moral dimension?

[Catholic_Lady]

Right, that's what it means, and that's what it is.  You and I -alone- would demonstrate the truth of this statement. 

Some things are moral or they aren't - to you-.  This is the nature of ones personal opinions and in no way contradictory to the notion of subjective morality.  You should not be surprised to find that others have different opinions...they are different people with a different framework and different experiences.  If morality were an animal (like a dog, in your example) than perhaps this line of reasoning would yield a description closer to truth, but since it isn't...it won't.  Or maybe it does, and morality is furry or not furry like  dogs are furry or not furry?  If you want morality to be some real thing, rather than a thought, you;ll need to find some morality that is a real thing, not a thought...and you'll need to explain why everytime we look at an example of morality it turns out to be a "not real thing" (I guess is the alternative?)...a thought.  No one has ever plucked any morality out of the air, it doesn't grow on trees.

Agree to disagree about morality being subjective.

And I have talked to Atheists who do not believe morality is subjective, so I guess it just depends on the person.

[Silver]

God's behavior certainly changed. What of that moral dimension?

Can she make the connection?

[IATIA]

The Amalekites sealed their doom by attacking God's chosen people

Forty years in the desert and "God's chosen people" killed, raped and pillaged just about every town they came across. Why would the Amalekites expect their fate to be any different? The best defense is a good offense.

[The Grand Nudger]

Right, that's what it means, and that's what it is.  You and I -alone- would demonstrate the truth of this statement. 

Some things are moral or they aren't - to you-.  This is the nature of ones personal opinions and in no way contradictory to the notion of subjective morality.  You should not be surprised to find that others have different opinions...they are different people with a different framework and different experiences.  If morality were an animal (like a dog, in your example) than perhaps this line of reasoning would yield a description closer to truth, but since it isn't...it won't.  Or maybe it does, and morality is furry or not furry like  dogs are furry or not furry?  If you want morality to be some real thing, rather than a thought, you;ll need to find some morality that is a real thing, not a thought...and you'll need to explain why everytime we look at an example of morality it turns out to be a "not real thing" (I guess is the alternative?)...a thought.  No one has ever plucked any morality out of the air, it doesn't grow on trees.

Agree to disagree about morality being subjective.

And I have talked to Atheists who do not believe morality is subjective, so I guess it just depends on the person.

I'm afraid that sort of agreement simply isn't possible between us.  You can choose to make claims and then balk at further requests for demonstration, but this is not "agreeing to disagree"...this is the shit and run...also been done, many times.  Atheists don;t have to believe anything in particular about morality, nor are they required to know what subjective morality -actually is- anymore than you are. If you're an example...then we might expect plenty of them to simply be mistaken.

I did tell you that it had little to do with atheism at the very outset...did I not?  That's the amusing bit, in any case, there's no shortage of options -other- than the commands of a god or the lines of an objective morality.  You're likely to have leveraged one yourself. I would certainly hope that you're capable of it, since so many of us clearly are.

Things "depending on the person" is a wonderful description both of subjective morality, and why it is subjective, you understand, yeah?

So, what do you think about those pious (but misinformed) worshippers of the past? Were they immoral when they acted upon their heartfelt convictions regarding the desires and commands of their god?

[Catholic_Lady]

I do find the notion that morality is completely relative and completely subjective, a deeply flawed one. And I don't even say this as a Catholic, I say this as a person who really does try to think logically. Even if I were an atheist, I don't think I could ever make sense of the notion that morality is always subjective.

The argument from incredulity cuts no ice. You cannot even defend your own morality, instead preferring to avoid the point.  You've yet to demonstrate your assertion that morality is objective and universal. You've yet to explain why an evil your god commits is only evil when humans commit it.

Given that, while I don't for a moment doubt your inability to conceive of moral relativity and subjectivity, I find that inability to be entirely unconvincing.

Hi Parkers Tan. I am not sure what you are referring to. What point am I avoiding? And I actually did address the "evil my god commits" a couple of times now.

This would mean that as long as a particular society or culture thinks something is moral, it is.

Not necessarily.  There are several different views on the matter, not one oversimplified view.  You should perhaps read up on the topic before you opine:

http://www.encyclopedia.com/article-1G2-...ivism.html
http://www.iep.utm.edu/moral-re/

Hm, someone else on here already confirmed that that is what they meant...

I could never see killing infidel children or burning alive women who were rapped or cutting off a 12 year old's clitoris as ever being moral.

And that is because you cannot see it. You have to explain why your moral sensibility is privileged.

I can explain it to you if you want. I do have an answer for it.

Regardless of whether or not that particular culture thought it was, I would still believe those things are intrinsically immoral and so it would follow that I would still believe in some sort of moral truth.

You say that, but the fact is that you weren't raised in a culture that held those acts to be good. That you find such acts immoral is no surprise.

That still doesn't explain why your morality is privileged.

Fair enough. I guess you are right that I can never claim to know what I would be like if I was something that I am not. But I would like to think I'd believe those things were still immoral.

---

Subjective means that it can be moral for one person, but not moral for another person. What I was saying is that I believe some things are either moral or they aren't. Kind of like an animal is either a dog or it isn't. There is no "it's a dog if you think it's a dog, but if you don't think it's a dog then it isn't one." Morality is something that is actually a reality rather than just a subjective thought or idea that can change from person to person.

Your problem is that you do not reason logically.

You are attempting to make comparisons were there are none to be made.

What do you mean?

[The Grand Nudger]

We would -all- like to think that we would still hold to what we do in the here and now......unfortunately, everytime we study it we see that this is a fantasy.  If you were the right kind of muslim/christian/african...from the right kind of place..you'd be clitless and certain that being so was the "right" way to be.  Your parents would have had it done to you, equally convinced that it was proper and good. You'd do it to your own daughter. This is what we see....and there is no room to agree to disagree on this count.

Maybe, maybe, you'd escape that cycle - a great many do not. You are fortunate in that you do not have to put yourself to this test.

[Catholic_Lady]

See my response a couple posts up. ;-)

And yes, we do include the bible, of course. But we also know that the bible is not the end all be all of our faith. There are non Catholic Christians who think Catholics are all going to Hell for that lol, but that is partly what sets us apart.

Forgive my looking askance, but cherry-picking is nothing earth-shaking. It simply means that you're entitling yourself to pick and choose which aspects of your faith you will abide.

Lol. It is not "choosing which aspects of my faith to abide." That IS my faith, in its entirety. Can you specify what exactly it is you are referring to? I'm pretty sure I know but I just want to make sure.

---

Hm? The Middle East is mostly Muslim, not Christian/Catholic.

You assume that muslims (and islam) are not pleasing to god?  That they do not follow the divine moral commands set forth by that god? They think they are, they certainly strive to do so.  They are, forgive me...a bit more committed to god and to that cause than a catholic, in my estimation.

I am sure a lot of Muslims are pleasing God. But people who kill others are not pleasing God, regardless of their religion.

[Silver]

What do you mean?

Precisely what I meant.